When you think they can’t get any creepier, they do. Here’s a disturbing new Men’s Rights meme-in-formation I’ve recently run across.
In a late-December rant about anti-porn feminist Gale Dines, the self-proclaimed “Male Renaissance Agitator” who calls himself Fidelbogen wrote:
In olden days of rough village justice she’d have gotten the scold’s bridle, or the the ducking stool, or the stocks. And quite right.
A couple of days later, regular A Voice for Men commenter DruidV, perhaps inspired by Fidebogen’s post, made a strikingly similar suggestion on that site:
I urge all Men here to have a look at wiki’s description of what was commonly known as a scold’s bridle, or the Branks. For whatever foolish reason, this item was done away with some time ago. This invention to end Men’s suffering, needs to be brought back into public acceptance and application, post haste, imo.
So let’s take a look at the Wikipedia page he linked to and see just what exactly this “Scold’s Bridle” was:
A scold’s bridle, sometimes called “the branks”, as well as “brank’s bridle” was a punishment device used primarily on women, as a form of torture and public humiliation.[1] It was an iron muzzle in an iron framework that enclosed the head. The bridle-bit (or curb-plate) was about 2 inches long and 1 inch broad, projected into the mouth and pressed down on top of the tongue[2]. The “curb-plate” was frequently studded with spikes, so that if the tongue moved, it inflicted pain and made speaking impossible.[3] Wives that were seen as witches, shrews and scolds, were forced to wear a brank’s bridle, which had been locked on the head of the woman and sometimes had a ring and chain attached to it so her husband could parade her around town and the town’s people could scold her and treat her with contempt; at times smearing excrement on her and beating her, sometimes to death.
Emphasis mine.
I will be charitable and assume that both Fidelbogen and DruidV were joking. That is, they don’t literally want to strap women’s heads into ghastly torture devices, smear them with shit and beat them to death. They just think that the very notion is hilarious.
Whether the suggestions were made seriously or not, they’re still pretty hateful. Given that Fidelbogen was recently taken aboard as a regular writer for A Voice for Men, and that DruidV’s comment on that site got mostly upvotes (and no criticism) from the regulars there, would it be fair to call A Voice for Men the “underbelly of a hate movement?”
I’m not sure why that particular phrase popped into my head, but somehow it seems all too appropriate.
“She gets complete protections against beatings, abuse, verbal, sexual, or physical assault, and HE gets protection against feminine lies, malice, and greed!
Is everybody happy?”
Nope. Why does she forfeit her children because her husband doesn’t like her?
Exactly – the minute you direct your issues or whatever on someone else, you lose all sympathy. Completely agree with that.
I agree. Honestly, that’s why I have been keeping to myself instead of trying to make new friends. After seeing so many bitter people in my life take their issues out on others, and on too many occasions, being the target of their anger, I have no desire to mess up another person’s life, even if it’s not intentional. I don’t believe I’m capable right now of being a good friend or having friends, so I choose to be solitary. I do socialize frequently, since I’m very extroverted, but it’s always in large groups, where I can keep things light and casual.
CassandraSays–January 7, 2012 @6:23pm
Because we all know how feminists–and their lawyeresses–exploit the law to disposess and spite the man whom they no longer like, and the child(ren0 of their union is usually the first victim. This way, if the husband or lover indeed abused her–or the child–she has the full protection of the law, and he is carted off to a well-deserved stay in the State pen, and she keeps the children, no questions asked!
If, on the other hand, she is the quarrelsome one, who just doesn’t like him, and wants to humilitate him and spite him, she better think twice before getting the law involved, because law–and justice–can and should work both ways!
“A word to the wise…”
@DKM,
So, a woman who is abused MUST have done something to have provoked it, and therefore should lose her kids. Yeah, whatever, you sad, sad little man.
Meller- I won’t speak for anyone else, but you’re not going to convince me of your sincerity just by repeating yourself in a louder voice.
Bullshit, Meller. A lot of MRAs look at their kids as mere pawns, and only give a shit come divorce time.
Not happy, because you’re still a vile fuck who wants women either dead or enslaved. So fuck off. Not supporting torture is fucking “Being a Decent Person 101” you pustulent sore on the ass of humanity.
In short, fuck you. Strong letter to follow.
EAT A BOWL OF BEES!!!
hellkell
But there’s no reason why someone should lose custody because they’re “quarrelsome” to their partner, Meller. Custody laws are there to protect the children, not the parents. I know that you’re very selfish and this is a bit difficult for you to understand, but really, children are not a reward for good behavior, or a means of punishing a woman who you think is too feminist.
Also I regret to inform you that the justice system agrees with me on this issue, so your fantasy of taking women’s children away because you don’t like how they speak is destined to remain just that – a fantasy. Just like all your other grandiose plans for the future.
i know it’s hard for you to understand, but this is not reality. And a man who can’t control himself enough to not savage a woman, cannot be trusted not to savage his children. So no, he is not necessarily the more suitable parent
If, on the other hand, she is the quarrelsome one, who just doesn’t like him, and wants to humilitate him and spite him, she better think twice before getting the law involved, because law–and justice–can and should work both ways!
Except that being “quarrelsome” is not against the law, but assault definitely is. Your false equivalence is false.
I also find it telling that to you the injured partner is the enraged gorilla, not the bleeding victim
“A lot of MRAs look upon their children as mere pawns..”
and feminists and their lawyeresses, to say nothing of family “courts” don’t, just for the sake of bleeding and punishing divorcing men?? I believe this when the divorce rate drops to the single digits level common before WWI!
Lotsa luck!!
Well of course it is! That enraged gorilla was obviously not beeing properly worshipped.
Actually, domestic violence, by itself, is not always sufficient grounds to deny a parent visitation or custody. There has to be reason to believe that the parent will abuse or neglect the children for visitation to be denied. Even when one parent is awarded primary physical custody, it is unusual for the other parent to he denied joint legal custody, even in cases of domestic violence.
Meller seems to find it impossible to imagine a situation in which a man hurts a woman and it’s not the woman’s fault.
My comment re: custody applies to CA in USA. As always, your mileage may vary.
Anti-Moron’s-Rights – Oh, I sympathise completely. I didn’t trust people myself for a long time, but since I started telling select friends about what happened to me, I’ve felt a lot better. I think I’ve been lucky, in my judgement has been pretty good and the people I’ve chosen to confide in have been nothing but sympathetic.
However, I told my mum a year ago and she automatically assumed my abuser was my father, which wasn’t true and is the reason I’m currently not speaking to her.
My dad left my mum when I was about six because he was gay and couldn’t live a lie anymore. I love my dad to bits and don’t think he’s ever done anything wrong, but I can understand the turmoil his announcement caused with the family even if I think my mum’s reaction was unacceptable.
I firmly believe in just letting go of lingering anger and bitterness in your life, because otherwise it just will make you ill. It’s definitely a philosophy I find useful.
Meller, I know you find this hard to believe, but not all women are feminists, therefore not all women who divorce are feminists. So you know, stop trying pin every fucking divorce and custody battle on us. Even your SOFGs can have enough.
We really don’t control the lawyers and the courts. If we did, “lotsa luck” indeed, fucko.
@Captainbathrobe
not sure if your comment was in response to mine but I do agree with that, which is why I said ” not necessarily”
@Pam
Right, these dudes act like abused women walked into a tiger’s cage or something
@hellkell
We need to start smaller with Meller. Meller, not every lawyer that represents women in divorces are women.
I need to go to bed, folks, but I’ll leave you with this particular loveliness as an antidote to DKM and NWO’s usual nonsense…
x
Fair enough, Shadow.
I’m not even certain Meller understands that not every divorce is intiated by a woman.
*initiated*
@captainbathrobe
😀 While I do appreciate their are nuances, I don’t think Meller even understands the reality so I tried a blunt instrument in the hopes that it would crack that hard shell he keeps around his ability to understand the world.
@Dracula
I’m sure DKM completely understands a man initiating divorce what with the chances nowadays that he’d married a modern woman, feminist or even *gasp* a lawyeress!!
Seems to me the only thing he understands is a man initiating violence against a modern woman.